Billy Graham Center
Archives
World Congress on Evangelism, 1966The materials from the World Congress on Evangelism are intended
solely for the edification of visitors to our web site and cannot be copied
or otherwise reused without permission.

REFORMATION 1517 AND 1966
by Gerhard Bergmann

Exactly 449 years ago today, on October 31, hammer blows fell on the door of
the castle church at Wittenberg. These blows echoed quickly on the wings of
the wind throughout all the Christian civilized world of that day. The Reformation
became a cosmic event of the first magnitude and the threshold of a new western
era..

The World Congress on Evangelism here assembled does well to remember this
birthday of the Reformation. In doing this we will consider three points, namely,

l. The various ways of viewing the Reformation

2. The inner meaning (Selbstverständnis) of the Reformation

3. The challenge of the Reformation for us today

1. Various ways of viewing the Reformation. Historia est magistra vitae: history
is the teacher of life, that is, we learn about life from history. Beginning
in 1517 the Reformation penetrated the decades and centuries that followed,
making strong impacts upon us even in 1966. Unfortunately, the Reformation could
not escape being subjected to dire misconceptions. A wrong understanding of
the Reformation leads to wrong attitudes, to wrong reactions. We must guard
against this with all our might. In these days of spiritual confusion it is
imperative and vitally pertinent therefore to reflect upon and to consider the
Reformation. It is important for us as a World Congress to learn from these
erroneous interpretations. Only then will history become our teacher.

There are four different views of the Reformation.

a. There is the cultural-historical view. This view was particularly popular
around 1900. Here Luther is praised as the founder of the German language. And
he is seen as the herald of freedom of conscience. He is lauded as the pioneer
of a humanistic view of man. Luther and Erasmus, the Reformation and Humanism,
are drawn together in rather doubtful fashion. But it was just against this
optimistic, rosy picture of man as given by Erasmus that Luther objected so
sharply. Mankind should have learned from history that the Reformation gained
its cause by its biblical and therefore sober and realistic view of man. The
horrors of two world wars, the concentration, prison, and internment camps have
decisively refuted humanism. Humanism is finished. For in humanism man becomes
something harmless and inoffensive. Never dare we put the Reformation and Humanism
in one package. The cultural-historical view of the Reformation, therefore,
is definitely false.

b. There is a nationalistic interpretation of the Reformation.. This view is
represented especially by Paul de Lagarde and by National Socialism. Here Martin
Luther is seen as the great German who freed Germany from the bonds and tutelage
of Rome. But this nationalistic interpretation of the Reformation is also false.
It is true that Luther believed in his people and country as every Christian
ought to do. But something else was of central importance for Luther. This his
words make perfectly clear: "When Germany buries its last minister,"
he said, "then it will be burying itself." With these words Luther
clearly pointed beyond that which is but national to that which truly remains
and abides. It is this which remains that was Luther's concern.

c. There is the confessionalistic view. This confession- alistic concept appears
in both Protestant Catholic garb. Even today there are many inside the Catholic
church who interpret the Reformation as the great downfall of western man. The
Reformation brought about defection from the church. The Reformation, they say,
is responsible for the fateful division of Christianity; it even supplies the
root for later secularism and for the autonomous man of our times. This view
of the Reformation subjects one to a distorted view of history. For the root
of secularism and autonomy lies not in the Reformation, but in the Renaissance.
Happily a change is taking place in the Roman Catholic church in its view of
the Reformation. Dean Kiefl has said:"Luther cleansed the innermost sanctuary
of the church." Another Catholic dignitary acknowledged to a Protestant
bishop: "What should we have become without you?" And with me a Catholic
priest discussed the "uncompleted Reformation." By this he meant that
the Reformation must yet do its work of renewal in the Church of Rome itself.
Only then would the Reformation be complete. In his two- volume work, Die Reformation
in Deutschland, Catholic uni- versity professor Lortz has made a significant
contribution toward correcting the picture of the Reformation. This changed
understanding of the Reformation penetrated even into the Council, where the
word "Reformation" came into official use.

But we find an erroneous understanding of the Reformation even among Protestants.
There are those who lull themselves in confessional self-satisfaction and become
exhausted in polemics against the Roman Catholic church, and are no longer self-
critical. This confessionalistic view of the Reformation is likewise false;
Luther did not see himself as a confession- alist, but very humbly he saw himself
as a preacher of the Word in keeping with the admonition "Preach the Word!"
as given by the Apostle to the Gentiles to his pupil Timothy.

d. There is the view of the Reformation as related to the entire church. This
view has a great deal of truth. It says, for example, and correctly, that Luther
did not want a new church, but simply renewal of the existing church. He desired
continuation, he did not desire inauguration of something new. For this reason
the actual birthday of the Protestant church is not October 31, 1517, but rather
the first Day of Pentecost, 33 A. D. This view also notes, and properly, that
Luther was no revolutionary, but a reformer The Reformation was simply something
that happened in the church.

It is likewise correct to see that every one of Luther's successors bears a
responsibility to the entire church. Even this World Congress is in no way exempt
or excluded from this responsibility. Yes, we bear responsibility also toward
the Roman Catholic church, for everyone who takes seriously Jesus' high-priestly
prayer in John 17, "Holy Father ... may they be one as we are one,”
it considers the division a great, gaping, bleeding wound in the body of Christ,
His Church. For just as there is but one God so there is but one church. A divided
Christendom is a self-contradiction. Because the successors of the Reformation
stand in a responsibility to the total church, all of us both inside and outside
of this Congress Hall are called to confessionalistic cleansing.

No matter how correct this is and remains, no matter how properly it is seen
from the total church perspective of the Reformation, nonetheless the Reformation
was not concerned about the church as such but about something else. This brings
us to

2. The Reformation's inner meaning or concept of self. If it were asked, what
was the Reformation all about?, tiae answer would include three things:

a. the absolute glory of God

b. the all-sufficiency of the redemptive work of Christ

c. the joyous Christian who has assurance of personal salvation

The inner meaning or core of the Reformation, therefore, is theo- and-christo-centric.
Only if we thus understand the Reformation, the way it understood itself, do
we view it properly. We are called then, to a theo- and christo-centric perspective
of the Reformation.

Let us briefly ask ourselves: what is contained in this threefold inner concept
of the Reformation?

In the first place, it stresses the absolute glory of God. The basic concern
of the Reformation lies in consistently taking seriously the first commandment:
"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Luther's opposition to the papal church derived from his recognition that it
had indeed placed something "beside me." Because the entire Reformation
took very seriously the revelatio Dei-- that is, God's revelation in His Word,--the
Reformation movement became a movement of the Bible. Because it was concerned
for the absolute glory of God, the Reformation was concerned, too, for the honor
of God's Word. This basic passion of the Reformation, namely, to let nothing
stand alongside the God revealed in His Word, helps us understand Luther's revolutionary,
and in his day, heretical, comment: "Even councils can err!"

This basic concern of the Reformation helps us understand also its negation,
not of tradition as such, but of granting equal status to Scripture and tradition.
The Reformers deeply revered the church fathers. But everything the fathers
said was to be measured in the light of the Holy Scriptures. It was this norma
normans, this matter of the Bible as exclusive, determinative norm for all the
teaching of the church that prompted the poet Konrad Ferdinand Meyer to say
of Luther: "He senses the monstrous rupture of the times, and securely
clasps his Bible."

In the matter of God's glory the Reformation was concerned about a clear witness
as to what constitutes ultimate authority (Erstinstanz). And what is this ultimate
authority? The triune God. The witness to this triune God the Reformation found
in sola scriptura, in Scripture alone.

We discuss, secondly, the all-sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. We wrongly
interpret the Reformation, if we think that the Reformers were opposed to good
works and pious exercises; what they did deny was the meritorious nature of
good works. The Reformers vehemently opposed any suggestion of synergism, the
false teaching that man cooperates with Christ to bring about faith and in a
manner that grants him personal merit. All of us somehow have a touch of synergism.
Why should there be this impassioned opposition to cooperatively gained merit?
Simply because to the extent that man can help earn his salvation by good works,
to that extent Christ's merit is lessened and thus the all-sufficiency, of His
redemptive work is undermined. For this same reason we must also understand
the Reformation's total negation of invoking the saints. The Reformation takes
seriously the words of Scripture: "If any man sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (I John 2:1).

In the last analysis also this second principle of the Ref- ormation is concerned
with the glory of Jesus Christ in that it stresses the all-sufficiency of His
atoning work and of the objective redemptive facts.

In the third place, the Reformation is concerned with the joyous Christian
who has personal assurance of salvation.

What does this indicate?

Despite God's greatness and incomprehensibility, man is nonetheless, called
to the possibility of having the joyous certainty of being a child of God. This
means nothing less than that personal assurance of salvation is a special concern
of the Reformation. As Luther says: "It is idle talk to say man is uncertain
whether or not he is a recipient of grace. Beware lest you ever be unsure; instead,
be sure.” This assurance of personal salvation is possible because of
the gracious and merciful gift of Christ's redeeming work. We see then that
the third concern of the Reformation is closely related to the second.

The Reformation discovers anew the words of Scripture: "Ye know that ye
were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver or gold ... but with the
precious blood of Christ... (I Peter 1:18-19). Or there is the passage: "We
know that we have passed from death unto life" (I John 3:14).

It was this awareness of personal salvation that brought the joyful Christian
into being, that created the freedom that a Christian knows in his bondage to
Christ. The Reformation proclaimed certitudo, certainty of salvation, over against
securitas, that is, security of salvation standing defined in terms of so many
meritorious deeds and works.

I trust that these three emphases have given us the inner significance, the
heart of the Reformation.

Closely related is the vital question we shall now discuss under number 3.

3. What challenges has the Reformation for us today? First we must note and
acknowledge that the problems apparent on October 31, 1517, are different from
those of October 31, 1966. The World Congress must take this fact into consideration.
This change in problems came about in a two-fold connection:

a. The concept of the world (Weltbild) has changed.

b. The view of man (Menschenbild) has changed.

By this we mean that the pre-scientific concept of the world as it still obtained
at the time of the Reformation eventually had to succumb to the scientific view.
For many people this scientific concept of the world is that of natural science,
this causal-mechanistic view, there is no longer any room for anything that
would explode the causal-mechanistic theory. In other words, there is no room
for anything miraculous, supernatural, mystical, for anything that deals with
wondrous and inexplicable things; there is no room for soteriology and eschatology.

Just as the concept of the world (Weltbild) has changed, so has the concept
of man (Menschenbild). Today's man has a different attitude toward life than
did medieval man. Today's man is the man of technology and science.

But we would ask, dear friends, have these two changes--in viewing the world
and in attitude toward life--not also thrust the Reformation into the wheel
of history, into the panta rhei, the flow of all things? Is it still possible
to speak seriously of a challenge of the Reformation?

Paradoxically enough, the answer must be that the very fact of these changed
concepts of the world and of man is what makes attention to the Reformation
all the more necessary and its challenge all the more urgent. This we must demonstrate.

The Reformation presents us with a three-fold challenge:

1) that pertaining to supreme authority (Erstinstanz)
2) that pertaining to the correct view of man
3) that pertaining to fullness of spiritual power

Point one investigates the matter of supreme authority. It is true that man's
concept of the world has changed. -ut it is wrong to exalt this changing world
view to the place of supreme authority (Erstinstanz). Even logic opposed this.
That which changes cannot be norma normans. Only that which itself is removed
from the cycle of changeability can be supreme authority. God is this ultimate
authority and not some construct of the world (Weltbild). God is unchangeable.
The Weltbild is even less justifiably enthroned as final authority now that
the natural scientific concept of the world has once again been enthroned in
our day, and that 'in fact by natural scientists. The time is past when it is
considered possible to absolutize a causal-mechanistic view of the world, and
to raise it almost to the status of a Weltanschauung and philosophy. Even if
the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, neither can it be scientifically
denied. What's more, a God proved by science would not be God. For I can prove
only that which is by creation lower than I, that which is at my disposal. Therefore
God must needs be removed from the arena of proof or He is not God, He is the
ultimate authority (Erstinstanz).

This knowledge of ultimate authority was peculiar to the Reformation. This
is its legacy to us.

It follows then that if the question concerning ultimate authority is made
clear and if God and not some concept of the world, not some human rationalistic
idea, is the ultimate authority, then the three-fold concerns of the Reformation
are still fully valid today. Today, therefore, we are still concerned with:

1) the absolute glory of God
2) the all-sufficiency of Christ's atoning work
3) personal assurance of salvation

We shall now consider the second challenge of the Reformation, namely, the
question of a valid concept of man.

It is true that many people today are influenced and impressed by science and
technology. But it is wrong to capitulate to this fact, to make it a gauge for
one's proclamation of the Gospel. It is foolish to argue, for example, that
because many people today no longer believe in miracles, that therefore we must
tell them that, in fact, there never were any miracles. Any theologian or Christian
who does this is offering the white flag of surrender to the followers of science
and technology. Such a one is never in a position to be of any real further
help to modern man.

We must clearly acknowledge that there are those who are indeed influenced
by science and technology. In fact, all of us are influenced thereby to some
extent, and in some manner. But even those who are especially impressed by technology
and science are aware of other and deeper levels of consciousness that are beyond
the reach of technology and science. It is here, however, that the real and
essential decisions of life are made. We cite only one of many possible illustrations
of this fact. The German Auto Club queried 4330 drivers. These were people,
obviously, who would have at least some knowledge of the mechanics of an automobile,
and who can usually be assumed to be mentally competent. You will be interested
to know that of these 4330 persons, 84.5% carried some kind of charm in their
cars, and only 9.9% preferred to rely on and use safety belts.

Apart from technological persons there are still many more persons whose thinking
and emotions are not decisively influenced by technology and science. Against
this background, we will see how totally wrong and absurd it is, even from a
religious-psychological perspective, for Bishop Robinson (in his book, A New
Reformation) to deal with a concept of man that--although I won't say it is
totally unknown--is what one might at least say is practically non-existent.
Moreover, it is the greatest of errors to make this obviously false view of
man the yardstick for Christian proclamation. Let me state the situation very
clearly: neither some view of the world nor some concept of man can be or can
become the ultimate authority (Erstinstanz) for proclamation. While views of
the world and of man are not overlooked in the right kind of proclamation, they
are subject to correction in the light of the revealed gospel. The gospel help
secular man recognize his self-estrangement as, in fact, an estrangement from
God.

For these insights concerning the proper view of man we are indebted to the
Reformation in its totality. Seen from this perspective the Reformation of 1517
becomes real and imperative also for us. We are still concerned with justification
of sinners by God and with personal assurance of salvation. Just today when
a great deal is being done in the area of depth psychology and when much is
in danger of being dissolved in psychologizing, we must tell people in all clarity
that assurance of salvation is not something measured by some kind of a barometer
of the emotions. If this were so, man would be thrown back on his own resources.
And that would be wrong. True, while assurance of salvation has to do with persons,
it nevertheless comes from, derives its life from the fact of salvation. Assurance
of salvation comes about through the objective redeeming work of Christ. God
imputes it to anyone who personally avails himself of it in an act of faith.
Certainty of salvation, therefore rests not in man's psyche, but in the redemptive
work of Christ.

All that we have said thus far confronts us now in the Reformation's third
challenge for us today.

In point three we consider the matter of fullness of power (Vollmacht). The
Reformation and proclamation of 1517 and thereafter were accompanied by such
fullness of spiritual power that they sped like a life-giving breath throughout
the countries of that day.

We today, on the-other hand, suffer because many of our churches are tongue-tied.
At the same time, our many, diverse churches and fellowships yearn for a word
of authority.

Two questions become prominent, then, as we look back on the Reformation of
1517:

1) what is fullness of power?
2) how are we to preach, in order that proclamation be accompanied by this fullness
of power?

Concerning 1), we would say that fullness of power is being filled with the
power from on high, being filled with the Holy Ghost. Fullness of power is total
dependence upon Christ and independence of men. Fullness of power is unconditional
assent to Christ and denial of self.

The secret of fullness of power both for the Reformation of 1517 and for that
of 1966 is found authentically only in Jesus Christ. His life was subject to
the rule: "I must work the works of Him that sent me..." (John 9:4).
In Jesus' life, there was no reference to self, only to God. Jesus was always
in direct relationship to God This was the secret of his complete dependence
upon God, of His fullness of power.

From such dependence comes the realization that fullness of power leads to
freedom, freedom in interpersonal relationships in marriage, in the family,
among countrymen, and in the State. In His authoritative freedom Jesus radically
opposed the degenerate social concepts of His day. We read: "He eateth
and drinketh with publicans and sinners" (Mark,2:16). Against the theological
dignitaries of His day, against the high priests and scribes, Jesus hurled the
words: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers" (Matthew 23:33).

Soren Kierkegaard says: "...infinite thoughtlessness is power.”
Please note, however, this is not thoughtlessness or lack of consideration toward
others; it means, rather, to have no thought for oneself. Fullness of power
is rooted in the "Determination to require nothing, to fear nothing...to
want to offer everything" (Kierkegaard). "Nec laudibus, nec timore"--one
is to regard neither man's praise nor blame, because one knows himself to be
totally dependent upon God.

In Jesus, fullness of power as dependence upon God, selflessness, and freedom
toward men was coupled with seeking and sacrificial love. "For the Son
of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give His life
a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

Today we have only as much fullness of power as Jesus has power in us. For
fullness of power is not a matter of determination. it does not come by personal
choice and of oneself, but comes, rather, from what is given.

All fullness of power in the lives of His Reformation servants is a mirroring,
a reflection of Jesus' indwelling power. Fullness of power is captivity of the
conscience to the Lord. It was Luther’s total dependence on Christ and
the captivity of his conscience to Christ that prompted him to declare before
Kaiser and his kingdom: "Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me.
Amen." Fullness of power as dependence upon God gives an inner feeling
of being able to rise above people and circumstances. This explains Luther's
letter to his sovereign when he said: “I should rather protect your Highness
than that you should protect me."

Now we consider the second question, which pertains to the relationship between
proclamation and fullness of power. First we must distinguish between fullness
of power as it pertains to the message (Sache) and fullness of power as it pertains
to the person. Fullness of power in regard to content pertains to the inescapable
validity of the revealed fact of the triune God as given in His infallible Word.
Bible criticism destroys fullness of power. Therefore we unhesitatingly say
yes to the Holy Scriptures. Fullness of power in reference to the message and
fullness of power in reference to the person are inseparable.

And so, because the concerns of the Reformation are actually the basic concerns
of Scripture it follows that we can expect fullness of power in Proclamation
today only if we make the foundations of the Reformation in their entirety the
basic concern of all our proclamation, teaching, and life.

Authoritative proclamation in preaching and Evangelism, in written and spoken
word, must have as its purpose the glory of God and the salvation of men.

Today one often hears it said that during the Reformation man's concern was
how shall I apprehend a gracious God? But today presumably man's concern is
how can I have good neighbors? In regard to this widespread attitude of our
day we must make it very clear that certainly we are concerned about good neighbors,
whoever they might be--whether American, Russian, Chinese, or even the neighbor
in business or at the office. But we will have gracious neighbors only when
men find their way back to a gracious God. Even the anthropological problem
of our day is a theological one. Fullness of power as dependence upon Jesus
Christ and independence or freedom from men, and from theological ideas and
trends has in it the courage to face unpopularity. Fullness of power has in
it the gift of courage to face the consequences. Such authoritative proclamation
must trumpet forth the truth that the deepest reason for the spiritual illness
of our feverish world stems from man's proud self-glorification which stops
not even at the doors of the church. The constantly increasing turning away
from God is the basic evil of our time. The scourge Of our age is autonomy and
anthropocentrism. To the extend that autonomy and anthropocentrism gain room
in the church and in theology, to that extent will the church and theology become
savorless, discarded salt; more than this, both will become traitors to the
ultimate authority (Erstinstanz) and to the Reformation of 1517.

On the other hand, to the degree that we take seriously the revelation of God
as given in His Word and keep it untainted from secular philosophical questionings,
inasmuch as the Bible is not at all interested in such, I say, to that degree
we may hope God will open the gates of heaven and pour forth torrents Of his
power that will surge through the church and theology, through our preaching
and our evangelizing.

Authoritative preaching today in 1966 as in 1517 consists in the full, undiluted
proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Fullness of power is total absence of compromise
in both the Message and in the messenger.

Therefore, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, who of us does not see the
connection between the Reformation of 1517, this Reformation Memorial Day of
1966, and the World Congress on Evangelism? Is there anyone who does not recognize
his personal responsibility?

It is my desire that this Congress shall bring everyone of us directly and
wholly to the foot of the cross of Golgotha. Only there are we protected and
unimpeachable. If we truly place ourselves beneath the cross, then we will throw
off lives of masquerade, of make-believe, of bluffing, of emptiness, and of
secret sin.

Then we shall discover what is real and genuine. Then we shall be empty, open
vessels for God's Holy Spirit.

Then and only then will this Congress become a kairos, a time filled with total
and direct dependence upon God to the extent that this is a reality our lives
will be granted fullness of power.

The Reformation of 1517 shall and must under any and all circumstances live
on both today and in the future. Never dare the Reformation chimes become a
death knell.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, the Reformation bells of Easter will ring out
today also if they resound in each of our hearts and if we, like our fathers,
are filled with the honest determination that to God alone shall be the glory.
Soli Deo gloria!